Showing posts with label Militarization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Militarization. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Has this been on the nightly news much?

Please go here and sign the online petition.

Basically, it's a petition to convince China to stop supporting the Burmese Junta by making the Chinese look bad vis-a-vis the 2008 Olympics. If you don't understand why it might be important to stop the Chinese from supporting the Burmese government, google it.

And by the way, the petition is pretty serious. It's moving towards 1 million people. And the advertisements are going to run in major newspapers.

Thanks. Have a great day.

Friday, September 07, 2007

It's Giuliani Time!



My new buddy Karen* (yes, the funny engineering video Karen) reminded me of my project to talk about each one of the oh-so-many 2008 candidates for POTUS. The problem with that little project, as I see it, is that so many of them are so obviously lackluster. I mean...Romney? Really? President? How am I supposed to write an entire post about that?

But I'd still like to finish it. So here is my post for "America's Mayor," Rudy Giuliani.

As a rule, trite poilitical attack names (Slick Willy, Shrub, Al Bore) are created simply because they are catchy. At times they have some sort of foundation in truth ("The Decider" comes to mind), but for the most part they are only useful for making someone look childish (although it's debatable whether the person using the name is, in fact, the childish one).

In the case of Rudy Giuliani, the label "President of 9/11" is not only catchy, but actually seems to be 100% accurate. Has anyone, any single person, actually heard him talk about something that wasn't A)Iraq, B)Iran, C)9/11, or D)Terrorism? I mean, really. I'm not saying that these aren't important issues (although I could make that argument). I'm saying that, outside of his argument that we are all going to die if we don't invade more countries(!), he really doesn't have anything going for him. And since I don't find that argument convincing...well, you get the picture.

You could say that, even though he doesn't talk about it much, running New York shows his capability for the job. But New Yorkers don't seem to like him very much.

Actually, whether it's "America's Mayor" Rudy, or "President of 9/11" Rudy, this is really going to hurt his case. Not only do these New Yorkers not like him, they also think he did a really terrible job with 9/11. Ouch.

I think I'll leave it at that. Talking about what Giuliani would do to the Constitution is a sure way to find myself in a paranoid depression.

*Karen was kind enough to send me this not at all doctored picture. My shocked face represents my fear that Giuliani is about to lecture me on how afraid I should be that anyone else might win the election.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

We Walk For Life

The first thing I have to say about the migrant trail is this: I had no idea what I was getting myself into. Every day that I was out in the desert a body was recovered somewhere in Arizona. Every hour, whether laughing, or sleeping, or eating Thai food (yes, Thai food) was spent in the physical and spiritual presence of people crossing, something that has come to mean so many different things to me throughout the past year. In many ways it means suffering. But it also means hope.

The view from the end. Looking back towards Mexico you can see mountain ranges on either side of the valley floor. When we started our journey those ridges were at least two days beyond our first camp. 80 miles really is a long way to walk in only a few days.


Alejandro Rangel Luna. My companion for the week. I started out in Sasabe with him strapped to the outside of my bag, but as time went on I found myself needing him closer at hand. It was very difficult to part with him. At times his presence felt like a burden. On several occasions asking for his forgiveness gave me peace.


The beauty of the natural world continues to capture me. Midway through the week I realized that death was out of place in the desert. The loss of life that was occurring all around me became a tangible symbol that, as much as we love the garden, we are living in the time after the fall. I spent many hours thinking about what it means to have grace in the desert.


I have talked fairly openly about militarization and the border this year, but it wasn't until the migrant trail that I would finally feel able to call southern Arizona a police state. Military convoys passed us every day. In the picture above there are four young men wearing flack jackets and battle helmets. Yes, helmets. We were chased by a helicopter in the dark and at one point circled by ATV's at night while we tried to sleep. We passed by the new camera towers erected by the Boeing Corp. They are inland from the border by many miles. The high powered cameras can swivel 360 degrees. The price of freedom indeed.


Standing on the side of the road as the Border Patrol arrested a family. I had very mixed feelings about our role there. I believe that observing the Border Patrol is a good way to ensure that the rights of the people being arrested are not being violated. But what about when it turns the people themselves into a spectacle?


A road spike that we found while walking down the highway. Border Patrol will get into high speed pursuits with vehicles. As a way to lessen injury to bystanders they will lay spike strips down on the highway. Sometimes the vehicle fleeing is packed with drugs. On many other occasions it is packed with people. I don't need to tell you what happens when an SUV filled beyond capacity hits a spike strip and rolls over at 80 mph.


Everything about this picture amazes me. The clouds opening up. E's beard. That weird glint on his glasses. By far the best thing about the trail was all of the unbelievable people that I met.


On the road again.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

What say you, and all your friends, meet all of my friends in the alley tonight?

A week ago today a team of hit men and enforcers from a drug cartel here in Mexico attacked a police armory in Cananea, a city in Sonora about 50 miles from Agua Prieta. After overwhelming (and killing) some of the officers on duty, the group left the armory with an unspecified amount of stolen weaponry and fled the city. On the way out of town they encountered and murdered four more police officers. They were chased, and eventually cornered, at a ranch in Sonora by members of the Mexican police and the Mexican military. All told, 22 people died.

There are many things that I could say about this event. It is clearly a tragic loss of human life. It is quite shocking that it took place in the state of Sonora. Violence like this is, unfortunately, not unheard of and in some cases quite common. States like Sinaloa and cities like Tijuana might as well be in Iraq. But Sonora has never really seen all out war between the drug cartels and the police. It is just one more sign that the long history of drug violence in Mexico is spiraling out of control.

On Friday a rumor was circulating the borderlands that another team of cartel members was headed to the town of Naco, Sonora. Naco is the next town over from Agua Prieta, a little pueblo that doesn't even have a gas station but does have an incredible amount of drug smuggling. The response to that rumor in Agua Prieta was, understandably, widespread panic. Schools were closed, the border was shut down temporarily, and people stayed off the streets well into the night.

All of this has left me feeling deeply unsettled.

In the midst of this violence my thoughts have been primarily selfish. I have thought little of the families that lost loved ones, or of the places in Mexico (and around the world) where violence like this is so common. Instead I have spent a great deal of time dwelling on a feeling that I have been unable to shake, a voice in the back of my head that refuses to go away. Even in Tucson, away from the border and doing more "normal things," I could not take my mind off the killings. And all of this navel gazing has left me chasing tangents through my mind, searching for the thought that might pull all of these strands together. I remembered my pothead high school friends and our ignorance about the true cost of getting stoned. I thought about the war on drugs and the morality of allowing legal drug use. I thought about the violence that profitable smuggling has unleashed. I thought about friends who are addicts, and all of my time spent in Skid Row. And I thought about the cost of securing our borders from drugs, in money and in human life.

I spent almost a week wandering in the cloudiness of my thoughts before dawn finally broke. The thing that has made me so deeply unsettled by these killings is not the loss of human life, although that is clearly tragic. What was so unsettling, and what continues to trouble me, was how quickly and easily my relationship to violence changed when I was confronted with the possibility that I might not be safe. Let me explain.

Since I have been in Agua Prieta, many people have been killed. The police chief, a reporter, a migrant, and an untold number of lesser "thugs," have all fallen victim to the violence that is laced into the fabric of the borderlands. In spite of these murders, I have never felt truly afraid. A man was beaten to death in a remote place that I visit every single week, but I do not hesitate to continue my trips there. I have almost no fear that I might meet the same fate.

This sense of security is a luxury afforded to me by my secret love of violence. I know in my heart of hearts that it will keep me safe. In the past I have justified my sense of security by saying that I am safe because I stay away from trouble. And it's true, I do stay away from trouble. I don't smuggle drugs, or spend time with people who do. But there is another, greater truth that I have protectecd myself from. I am convinced that I will be safe because I believe that violence has the power to protect me. I believe that, as a U.S. citizen, I can cross the border and be protected. I can depend upon the literally thousands of U.S. government employees running around in the desert to keep the "bad people" from me. I can trust their guns.

When I am in the desert, or in Agua Prieta for that matter, I can trust my whiteness to keep violence at bay. I know that killing me is bad for business. Kill a Mexican? Happens all the time. Kill a white kid doing humanitarian work? Doesn't look good for you. Whether it is the Mexicans or the Americans, I know that the threat of violence from the government keeps me safe.

So I complain about all of the Border Patrol agents here, not because I want just anyone to be able to walk into the U.S. anytime they want to, but because I hate the migrant deaths. I complain about all the guns on the border, not because I love the drug smuggling, but because sometimes those guns are used to kill innocent people. But when it comes down to it, I love my own safety, and the violence that protects it, more than I love the lives of other people.

And I trust violence more than I trust God. When it came down to my own safety, I gave up my belief that God is powerful, and I worshipped violence instead. "Thank God," I thought, "for all of those men with guns."

Violence is my golden calf. Is it yours?

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Police Brutality Is Like Soooo 1990's.

Video from the May 1st migrant march in Los Angeles. When will the LAPD ever learn that there are always cameras in the City of Angels?



I guess it's a good thing that Rage Against the Machine are back.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

This post is for Rachel.

The Gospel, as brought to you by the New York Times.

(You might need to sign up for a free membership to view the link)

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

And it came to me that every plan is a little prayer to father time.

The world in which we live.

The State Department issued a travel warning for northern Mexico. Drug related violence has been shockingly high this year in many cities. AP, thanks be to God, still seems relatively safe.

The Border Patrol agent who shot and killed Francisco Dominguez Rivera, 22, has finally been charged with murder. Nicholas Corbett, 39, will stand trial on four counts related to the shooting. It's tragic that both of these families are losing their sons.

Bodies were found this week near Douglas/Agua Prieta on both sides of the international border. A body was found about thirty feet away from one of our water tanks on the Mexican side, and another was found at an undisclosed location in the U.S.

Update: The body of a journalist from Agua Prieta who has been missing for several weeks was found near Janos in the state of Chihuahua. Early reports are saying that he was tortured.

I'm not sure about using this as a theology, but right now I'm thinking that the greatest gift Jesus has ever given us is the gift of Hope.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Meet Your (Legalized?) Neighbors

This is going to be a long one.

As some of you may know, and as most of you almost certainly don't, a piece of legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives this week under the name the "Gutierrez-Flake STRIVE Act of 2007." From what I can tell it made a very small splash.

To make an almost seven hundred page piece of public policy mercifully short, it's an immigration bill. The jury seems to be hung on whether it's the one we've been waiting for.

Some specifics for you, as digested by me:


  1. This STRIVE Act includes amnesty. That means, more or less, that anyone living inside the United States without proper U.S. documentation since June 1st, 2006 or before will be given the opportunity to gain legal status, and eventually the possibility of citizenship. Among the criteria that must be met are proof of employment, a criminal background check, and payment of a series of fines. Not surprisingly, the details are complicated. Supposedly priority would be given to reuniting families.
  2. A new type of visa, the H-2C, would be created to accommodate at least 400,000 new temporary immigrant workers per year. Workers would be given legal status for a period of 3 years, with the possibility of a further three year extension. Spouses and children would be given legal residency status during this period as well. Workers would be forced to leave the country if employment lapsed for more than 60 days. Employers hiring these workers would be required to prove that they first sought, and failed to find, domestic employees. This program would be monitored by a new, still undeveloped, electronic government system to be implemented at businesses across the country. The employment of unauthorized immigrant workers would carry stricter punishments.
  3. Both the DREAM Act of 2007 and the AgJOBS Act of 2007 are included in the larger bill. The DREAM Act works to allow undocumented children in the United States to pursue their education past the high school level. The AgJOBS Act specifically targets migrants seeking employment in agriculture and offers them modified benefits for consistent work in this area.
  4. Large amounts of new funding would be allocated to the Department of Homeland Security to ensure "operational control" of the border. This is a fancy little Border Patrol term that means that we decide who comes in and who doesn't. Technology, staff, and infrastructure would all be increased drastically. That means more cameras, more helicopters, more trucks, more agents, more buildings, more fence, more roads. More more more. The amnesty and legal guest worker clauses in the law would only be implemented after the DHS can prove to an unspecified degree that border security is being increased and that the employee tracking system has been designed and implemented.
  5. Increased penalties and enforcement for illegal smuggling, gang activities, etc., having to do with illegal immigrants.

That's basically it. Now let's break this thing down.

  1. Amnesty is going to be highly unpopular with a massive number of people living in the United States. Lou Dobbs might literally explode in outrage. Why? The Reagan amnesty, more than any other single factor, is blamed by many people to have caused such a massive surge in immigration. A second amnesty, in their view, would be repeating this fatal mistake. In some ways it's a valid criticism. Why reward people for breaking the law? Why reward people who broke the law last year but not any of the people who want to come to the United States right now? There's a simple answer for all of that. Basically, amnesty is a compromise. It recognizes the work that illegal immigrants have done in this country and accepts that we can't really kick them out now.It's a way to bring millions of people, some who have lived almost their entire lives here, into the folds of the United States' legal order. This is good for everyone. Immigrants will be more likely to report crimes without fear for their own status. They will be more able to participate in the conventional economy, a boon for everybody. It's a win-win-win-win-win situation, as many people are stating. Amnesty, in my view, is good. The way this amnesty is done isn't. Some estimates for the time it would take to achieve citizenship are as high as 25 years. What, exactly, is the point of that? Who does it benefit? And how long will it be before the system even kicks in? Before you dismiss this criticism as unimportant, think about the logistical nightmare, for everyone, that millions of people trapped in legal limbo would create. How is that even being proposed as a policy? That's the current policy with a sugar coating.
  2. Worker visas. The good: We are currently arresting 1.2 million people a year as they try to cross illegally into this country. Worker visas are a very good way to bring those people out of the deserts and through the ports of entry. This would save lives, make border enforcement both possible and ethical, and legalize millions of hard workers and the people who employ them. Sounds great. The bad: Again, this system would not kick in until some unspecified date. Securing the borders means getting workers out of the desert. One is impossible without the other. Temporary visas, while having some attractive qualities (more participants, the ability for people to earn money and return to their country, etc.), invite all sorts of unethical business practices. Nothing says "take advantage of me!" like the guarantee that in a short time they will be gone. Strikes? You don't work for 60 days, you're gone. No provision for workers organizing. That's bad for all laborers in the U.S. You know what else is potentially bad for all U.S. workers? Short term employees of any kind. Long term health care? Retirement benefits? Higher wages? All of these things could suffer, depending on the fields of employment, when you have a large and disposable pool of workers. And now the ugly: Speaking of disposable, where are the worker protections in this bill? If a worker loses his arm in a meat plant, what rights are that worker guaranteed? Their family? Also terrible, but more so from a policy perspective, who actually thinks that the government can set up this program to hold employers accountable? Who actually wants them to? Are they going to somehow lure away google engineers to do it? It's enough to make any liberal want to starve the beast.
  3. Agricultural workers are clearly needed. Molly sent me an article talking about how Colorado, after tough new enforcement standards scared of laborers, is using prisoners to do the field work once done by migrants. But is it good for a nation that is morbidly obese (literally, 3 in 5 overweight, 1 in 5 obese) to have an unending supply of cheap food labor? Shouldn't we be pursuing sustainable policies instead, ones that promote a higher quality and lower quantity of food? This might be a pipe dream, but don't forget that once public policy gets made it can be hard to change. A precedent once set is, well, set. Think about it. I clearly won't knock the DREAM Act. Kids going to college? You bet.
  4. Supporting this one sort of depends on which side you fall on for increasing border militarization. I'm in favor of decreasing it, but I'm not a fan of human trafficking, the violence of the drug smuggling trade, or international gangs. So I think having a few guys watching the line is a good idea. But this is an incredibly stupid way to do it. I'll say it as many times as I can so that the point sticks: the border is impossible to secure without at least 5 times the number of agents we have now, or a drastic decrease in the people trying to cross. Personally I believe that it is impossible to secure in its current state. There is ample evidence to support that. Bizarrely, this is the border equivalent of the Iraq surge. Send more people to realize unspecified goals in an unspecified length of time. Democrats knock it there but want to try it here? Legalizing people is the only way to make them stop crossing illegally in a quick and relatively painless manner. And haven't we pretty much all agreed that these workers are good for the economy? Who's opposing regulating who comes in and out of the country? No one. Stopping illegal crossers means drastically increasing legal ones. When all the maids and cooks and roofers are out of the desert the only people remaining will be the ones you really don't want. Instead, they apparently want to spend tons of time and money on a policy that is killing people, just to appease the military industrial complex (Eisenhower's term, not mine) and the far-right wing. Why? Democrats really need to stop worrying about looking tough and start solving policy problems. It's hard to knock success.
  5. Increased penalties for committing crimes is another non-starter. Our prisons are already overcrowded. Doesn't it make more sense to enforce the laws that we already have for things like gang activity and smuggling? Again, wouldn't that be a lot easier if we had the people not committing crimes, just looking for work, in a legal system as soon as possible?

So let me put it this way: this is not the bill we've been waiting for. It's got amnesty, sure. It's got the DREAM Act, which you have to be insane not to support. And what else does it have? I guess the promise that maybe at some point in the conceivable future we would get people out of the deserts. But when would that be? And then what? This thing's a mess. But what if it's the only mess we're going to get? I don't think so, and I'll pass. This problem's not going away and there's gotta be a better way than this. Thankfully I think the Senate has a lot more up its sleeve.



I think I'll fill this out in a later post, but many of the terms that I used here I strongly disagree with. Illegal, undocumented, amnesty, operational control...I could go on. I think that they obscure the truth and treat good people like criminals as an operating principle. Just for the record.

By the way, in spite of this post and my last one, I got a surprising amount of work done today. Some days you just have to blog. Some days you just have to work. I guess today was both. Academic deconstruction, public policy analysis, and non-profit social justice work. Plus I ate an avocado AND at my favorite burrito joint. Aaron's day for the win. On the other hand I only slept four hours last night. I've been up since three in the morning. I'm bound to crash soon.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Update: Border Patrol Shooting

From the paper two days ago:

Border Patrol agent's account of Jan. shooting doesn't match evidence, witness accounts

Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.26.2007

A U.S. Border Patrol agent's account of what led him to shoot and kill an unarmed illegal entrant in January doesn't match witness testimony or forensic evidence, records released Monday by the Cochise County Attorney's office show.

The documents appear to support the claims of witnesses, including family members of Francisco Javier Dominguez-Rivera, 22, of Puebla, Mexico, who have said the agent already had a gun in his right hand when he drove up to them in a Border Patrol vehicle the afternoon of Jan. 12 about 150 yards north of the border between Bisbee and Douglas. The area is southeast of the Paul Spur Lime plant and Arizona 80 and is routinely used for smuggling of both people and drugs.

The witnesses said the agent ordered them to the ground and had switched the gun from his right to left hand as he physically pushed Dominguez-Rivera, to the ground. That is when they said the gun fired.

The agent, Nicholas Corbett, has not cooperated with investigators. However, he reportedly told colleagues on the day of the shooting that he was in pursuit of three members of a larger group of illegal border crossers and had moved to intercept them in his vehicle. He exited the vehicle with his gun drawn and spotted a man at the rear of his vehicle with a rock in his hand.

When the man made a motion as if he were about to throw the rock, Corbett said he raised his weapon and fired a single round.

The bullet that killed Dominguez-Rivera entered the left side of his chest, passed through his heart and liver and exited the abdomen a couple of inches to the right of Dominguez-Rivera's navel, according to an autopsy report by the Cochise County medical examiner's office that was released along with hundreds of other pages of documents related to the shooting investigation.

The documents were released Monday because of a public records request from the Arizona Daily Star and other publications.

Cochise County Attorney Ed Rheinheimer said he has not yet decided whether the agent will face charges, noting that that decision will not be made until he's had a chance to review a video of the incident captured by a Border Patrol surveillance camera.

That videotape is in the hands of the FBI, he said, where it is undergoing "video enhancement."

Corbett has returned to active duty since the incident, Border Patrol officials said.